Faith Baptist Church Podcast Faith Baptist Church

Sermon Notes:There is what I call a, “Majority Opinion”, that has taken hold in Western Christianity.  This teaching or opinion, while well intentioned, is a dangerous distortion of the teaching of Scripture and of the Holiness of God.            This majority position is held by people like Lewis Smedes (1984, p.69) Mark McMinn (1996, p.207) Ed Smith (2005, p.168), Neil Anderson (2000, p.2230), Tim Clinton and George Ohlschlager (2002 p.240) Everett Worthington( 2005, p.114) and Robert Enright and Richard Fitzgibbons (2006, P.41).  The position of these writers is that repentance is beneficial for forgiveness but not pivotal.  Repentance according to these writers is that repentance is only required for reconciliation.  Forgiveness is an act  that an offended person can do without ever seeking the repentance of the offender.  However, according to this view, reconciliation requires both the giving and the receiving of forgiveness.             The majority opinion uses Matthew chapter 18 as its go to passage to justify its viewpoint.  In Matthew 18 they turn to the story of the unmerciful servant who has his debt cancelled and does not return the favor to his servant who has debts.  Because of his unforgiveness the unmerciful servant is put in jail and his property is confiscated.  Jesus in the passage warns that if we do not forgive others our heavenly Father will not forgive us.  The story of the prodigal is also a key passage where the father is seen receives his son back and gives a party for him before any word of repentance is uttered (Lk. 15:11-32).            The hermeneutic that comes from these and other passages brings a theology and methodology that subscribes to two forms of forgiveness, divine and human.   According to Everett Worthington:             Jesus’ direct teaching on forgiveness links divine forgiveness with human forgiveness of others who have offended us…. Interpersonal forgiveness is meant   to be unilateral, not contingent on or waiting for the offender to accept       responsibility confess, apologize, make restitution, ask for forgiveness, and    completely turn from the sinful and harmful acts….Divine forgiveness is linked to            human repentance….but interpersonal forgiveness is not.            Why the difference?....God is infinite and can know each offender’s true    motives, but humans cannot.  Thus, God relieves us of trying to discern people’s          true motives prior to forgiveness (Worthington, Sharp, Lerner and Sharp, p.33).             The appeal of this position is that it seems to match the biblical texts.  Second, it offers a way for clients to bring healing from past hurts, especially when the offender is not repentant or is no longer alive.  Third, it is a means of no longer feeling held captive to the repentance of another.  Fourth, it gives a one a sense of being altruistic.             The problem with this approach is that it does not match the biblical material fully.  Second, is not needed for healing to take place.  Third, one does not have to be held captive without repentance.  Fourth, it may not be as altruistic as would like to believe.            The above assertions are born out in a number of substantial ways.  First, we see this truth theologically in our obtaining of forgiveness from God.  Every major evangelical theologian across the theological spectrum would agree that repentance is required for forgiveness to be granted and salvation to be obtained, ( Sproul [1992, p.193], Ryrie [1982, p.337], Geisler [2004, p.518], Erickson [1985, p.937] and Miley [1989, p.100]).  God requires repentance for the obtaining of forgiveness.  Otherwise the atonement would have no value.   People would not care to reach out for it.  Without repentance being conditional for forgiveness mercy simply become licens